Letters

Who needs maths?

After the interesting but very difficult introduction by Moshé Machover at Communist University (‘Labour theory of value for the 21st century’), a comrade from the floor expressed his puzzlement at some of what had been said - a sentiment received with some approval in the room. Moshé and then the first speaker from the floor had used technical terms from statistics that most, though not quite all, had some difficulty with. The speaker said that he was useless at maths and noted - correctly, I believe - that many people in this country are quite proud that, while they may be “good at English”, they are “useless at maths”.

At school, while no star, I was quite good at maths, but when I went to university I studied philosophy and politics, because I was sick of the maths, physics and chemistry I’d done at school - a shame really. Later in life I got an Open University degree in maths - in part to show myself that I could do it. Undergraduate mathematics opened up a whole new world - of hard work and wonderment. A friend told me that his experience of studying mathematics was of long periods of puzzlement and almost despair, followed by fantastic ‘Eureka’ moments, and I would agree.

There was complex analysis, quantum mechanics, number theory, and geometry and trigonometry that couldn’t be dreamed of at A level. The ability to transform an unsolvable equation into a unit circle and then transform it, solved, seemed to me, like a lot of number theory, almost miraculous. I also did two statistics modules, yet I still found it difficult to follow some of Moshé’s talk. I could mostly understand the words, but not all the argument. But, as he indicated, the sheer computing power now available to statisticians is something that Marx could never have dreamed of.

I’m not a professional mathematician or physicist - I’ve hardly looked at mathematics since I graduated. I worked for many years, during and after my studies, in a junior role in finance. The main benefit of mathematics there was the ability to look at figures on spreadsheets and in databases without being intimidated. You look and then, every now and then, you think, ‘Hang on a minute’. I was personally always alert to any sign of contractors trying to pull a fast one (there were a few, but not many). The mathematics involved was mostly addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and percentages. Another use of mathematics I have found is that, when watching University challenge, I can nearly always understand the maths questions … but against eight 19-year-olds - not a chance.

Another voice from the floor pointed out that it was not just statistics and mathematics that people were ignorant of, but science in general. This is very true. To my mind the reason for all this is that most people do not use maths or science in everyday life. When I was young (oh dear, these old people), bar staff - of which I was one for a while - could calculate a bill in their heads. Now they seem unable to give a price for anything - because they don’t need to.

We can all to some extent carry on with our knowledge of English, because we use it all the time. Those who learned other languages at school (or home, of course) can speak, write and read it if they carry on speaking, writing and reading. But mathematics? But physics, chemistry or biology? Some people with a keen interest might continue to follow their favourites for a lifetime, but mostly only the professionals can retain the knowledge and add to it, as their speciality develops.

Even professionals can lose track of subject areas they don’t work with. A professional statistician may well be able to follow breakthroughs in, say, set or number theory, but nobody can know everything: as is sometimes said of experts, ‘They know more and more about less and less’. But we need our experts. The working class in the future (as soon as possible, we hope) will need physicists, statisticians, medical folk - all sorts. Because one of the most urgent tasks of the working class will be to start clearing up the mess that capitalism leaves behind.

Nuclear waste, for instance, needs scientists who know what’s going on - nuclear facility workers and those with ideas from any field. Toxic waste of all kinds will need chemists, biologists, waste workers and anyone with knowledge and interest in the field. There are millions of people all over the world who need immediate help to get fresh, clean water on tap. We need to develop and spread sustainable power - the list is almost endless and anyone can add their own items.

We need experts in the sciences and volunteers to learn what needs to be learned. That means even more, and better, ‘popularisers’ than we already have. Meanwhile we just have to keep going and, if people like Moshé and the other scientists at CU can help us understand, then we are truly lucky.

Jim Cook
Reading

People's Vote

As a founding member of Socialist Resistance, I challenge Jack Conrad’s ill-considered comment in the Weekly Worker (‘A failure of definition’, August 9).

Your leading writer will remember our role in the Socialist Alliance. You may also be aware of how and why we formulated and advocated our policy on the European Union referendum. We support Another Europe Is Possible, predicted the rise in racist attacks and further anthropogenic, environmental decay.

Oxford SR has discussed our attitude to the so-called People’s Vote and called for an all-members meeting. As you acknowledge, referenda are part of the democratic deficit. As Mike Macnair described us, the “actually existing” International empowers us to work in the areas where we’re strong, and we tail no-one.

We do not feel obliged to criticise you, but we have not decided how, or if, to oppose the People’s Vote.

Andy Gibbons
Oxford

Real target

At long last, the witch-hunt in the Labour Party has reached its long-intended main target: Jeremy Corbyn. For the last three years, vastly exaggerated claims that the Labour Party is awash with anti-Semites have been used to attack the left. But Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth, Tony Greenstein and hundreds of other Labour Party members were little more than collateral damage.

This vicious campaign, orchestrated by the pro-Zionist lobby and the right in the party, never had anything to do with fighting anti-Semitism - but everything with getting rid of Jeremy Corbyn. His pro-Palestinian views and socialist policies make him unacceptable to both.

That is why the national executive committee was wrong to adopt in its code of conduct the working definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and the examples that have been published alongside it. The intent of this document is not to define anti-Semitism - after all, the Oxford English Dictionary manages that in six words: “Hostility to or prejudice against Jews.” No, its sole purpose is to conflate criticism of Zionism and Israel with anti-Semitism.

• Most IHRA examples refer to Israel. In effect, the IHRA definition is labelling anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic. But Zionism is itself a cause of anti-Semitism today: Israel, by claiming to be a Jewish state, associates Jews everywhere with its crimes against the Palestinians.
• The most disputed IHRA example bans the description of Israel as a “racist” state. But racism is exactly what the Israeli government has now enshrined via its ‘Nation-State’ law.
• We must defend freedom of speech on Palestine. In their identical front pages, the Jewish Chronicle, the Jewish Telegraph and Jewish News admitted that: “Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need to be expelled.”
• Any attempts by the NEC to introduce so-called ‘safeguards’ are doomed to fail. Not only would they compete with the IHRA examples (which rule is more important?). Any assurance that past comments would not be investigated are also useless, because Jeremy Corbyn has already been declared an anti-Semite.

We say: All those summarily expelled or suspended from membership without due process should be immediately reinstated. We need mandatory reselection of all Labour Party MPs. The rightwing saboteurs in the Parliamentary Labour Party have to go. Momentum has to be radically democratised. Instead of defending Corbyn, Momentum owner Jon Lansman has sided with the witch-hunters. He has thrown Jackie Walker and Pete Willsman to the wolves and is now ready to abandon Corbyn too. He wants the term ‘Zionism’ banned. He runs Momentum like a dictator, having abolished all democratic structures in his coup of January 10 2017. But democracy and free speech are essential in the struggle to transform our party and society.

Labour Against the Witchhunt
email

Unfit for purpose

The definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the government is not fit for the purpose of decision-making, declared Geoffrey Robertson QC on August 31. The opinion, which was produced to advise the Palestinian Return Centre, states that the definition does not cover the most insidious forms of hostility to Jewish people and the looseness of the definition is liable to chill legitimate criticisms of the state of Israel and coverage of human-rights abuses against Palestinians.

Mr Robertson, an expert on freedom of speech and human rights, who has lectured on genocide at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has criticised Theresa May for adopting a definition which was not intended to be binding and which was not drafted as comprehensible. By pivoting on expression that arouses hatred (a “very strong word”), it does not cover speech that arouses hostility, or which “politely spreads the poison of prejudice” against Jews as a race. He evinces surprise that Jewish organisations advocating acceptance of the full definition by the Labour Party and other organisations have not realised that it fails to protect Jews from many prevalent kinds of anti-Semitism.

Mr Robertson examines all 11 “examples” attached to the definition and concludes that several of them are so loosely drafted that they are likely to chill criticism of action by the government of Israel and advocacy of sanctions as a means to deter human rights abuses in Gaza and elsewhere. He says there is a particular danger that the definition will be used mistakenly, to defame criticisms of Israel by branding them as anti-Semitic.

Mr Robertson is particularly critical of the government for adopting the definition without parliamentary discussion and without the protection for free speech recommended by the Home Affairs Committee. Should any university or local council apply it, he says they should follow the Home Affairs Committee recommendation and add to it the clarification that “it is not anti-Semitic to criticise the government of Israel without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent”. He adds that this should be added by any public bodies or organisations that adopt the full definition endorsed by the government.

Mr Robertson continues that “a particular problem with the IHRA definition is that it is likely in practice to chill free speech, by raising expectations of pro-Israeli groups that they can successfully object to legitimate criticism of Israel and correspondingly arouse fears in NGOs and student bodies that they will have events banned, or else will have to incur considerable expense to protect them by taking legal action. Either way, they may not organise such events.”

The opinion concludes that, whether under human rights law or the IHRA definition, political action against Israel is not properly characterised as anti-Semitic unless the action is intended to promote hatred or hostility against Jews in general.

Palestinian Return Centre
email